Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Beware of Media Selection Bias, Sensationalism

From an article by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University titled "The Media's Gas Problem":

"What people often don’t realize is that the media framing of scientific studies incorporates the journalist’s own perspective, whether the journalist realizes it or not. A dramatic example is the recent appearance of two scientific studies on fracking that provide a natural experiment on media sensationalism.

Study One was critical of natural gas development; Study Two was supportive. How much coverage did each get in the mainstream media? The score:

Study One by Cornell University researchers: 24 big-city newspaper articles and an NPR appearance.

Study Two by Carnegie-Mellon researchers: Two newspaper articles, one of them in a story primarily about Study One.

The immediate takeaway from this story of dueling studies is that readers should be alert to the possibility that the media is emitting its own gas into this debate. The broader point is that the media’s treatment of scientific studies should be treated as a kind of rolling health scare, a structural imbalance based on a selection bias that is unlikely to change anytime soon."

292 Comments:

Don't feel too bad for the fossil fuel industry. They pay scientists $10,000 for every letter they can get published that serves to undermine the IPCC consensus on global warming, a consensus that is shared by 98% of climate scientists and is not rejected by any scientific body of international standing (see here). The CEO's know what the rest of the scientific community knows. Global warming is a threat to their grandchildren. But considering that would be irrational from a market perspective of short term profit maximization because the cost is an externality paid for by others, not the fossil fuel industry. The very survival of the species is an externality that doesn't matter on free market capitalism. So you do what it takes to maximize those short term profits. And if that means paying people to write lies that muddie the waters, maybe change public perceptions, even if that means the death of the species, then this is what you do.

So this is why we get "balance" in the news. On the one hand you have all scientists. On the other you have the founder of the Weather Channel. Show both sides. Even if one side is the flat earthers.

Maybe fracking is better than coal. But the reality is if we don't leave some of these hydrocarbons in the ground, rather than spewing them rapidly into the atmosphere in a way that the carbon can't be absorbed rapidly enough (it helps the the rainforests have been wrecked), then it's game over. That's the important point.

"So you do what it takes to maximize those short term profits. And if that means paying people to write lies that muddie the waters, maybe change public perceptions, even if that means the death of the species, then this is what you do."

What we need, Paul, is democracy. If we had that we'd limit our carbon emissions because Americans support that. Or at least they did prior to the massive PR campaign by AEI and Exxon Mobile.

We are not the ones that want an elite to rule. That is AEI. They want corporations to set the agenda. Those with the most money make the rules. What do they want? Profit maximization even if that means environmental destruction.

Buddy, I had said that I don't dispute the Carnegie Mellon study and have no problem with the fact that it was funded by the Sierra Club. It could be that fracking has less carbon emissions per unit of power than coal. I'm referring to media coverage generally. My post was blocked for spam I think. This happens sometimes. If Mark sees it I'll expect he'll pass it through.

Jon,"....and is not rejected by any scientific body of international standing...."

Do you know anything about science? If so, that statement alone should make you shudder. Especially when much of the data have shown to be flawed, manipulated or outright fabricated....not to mention that every prediction (so far) has been as accurate as that guy who keeps putting dates on the end of the world.

Speaking of flat-earthers, you do realize that there was a time when Galileo was in that 2% you think are so silly, right? Any time you see scientists in absolute lockstep, not trying to disprove each other, beware.

Jon,OK, I'll take reply that as a, "No, I don' know anything about science."You call what is going on now "the scientific method"? Really?There are more scientists that disagree on evolution.You call liars scientists, and those who dare disagree fortune tellers. Too bad we can't put those 2% of blasphemers under house arrest for the rest of their lives. Oh, wait...that's pretty much what you threaten to do by taking dissenters out of the science world and putting them in the kook world. Nice job. The Vatican may have an opening for you if you're so inclined.

If you really want to follow the money, you're looking in the wrong place.

With regards to fraud and fabrication, I assume you're talking about the hacked emails. Repeated studies have confirmed that there was no wrongdoing. Watch this fun YouTube clip on the manufactured controversy. As far as the money trail, I've already provided the sources. We can believe there's a massive conspiracy amongst scientists or we can believe what the fossil fuel industry openly tells us. They've initiated a massive propaganda effort to convince the population it's all a liberal hoax even though THEY KNOW IT'S REAL. AEI is a part of this propaganda effort. They have no choice because their systemic constraint of profit maximization despite the externalities (costs paid by the public and not by the industry itself) requires that they ignore the fate of the species for their own profit centered goals.

Jon,No, I'm not just referring to the hacked emails, but I can see by your source of 'repeated studies' that there is little sense in dicussing this any further with you. You should consider reading more.

This info is from The American Association for the Advancement of Science's report:NOAA’s total budget request is $5.6 billion, which would be an increase of 17.0 percent. Of this, $437 million would be for climate research funding, which is an increase of $77 million.National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF would receive $7.4 billion in FY 2011, an increase of 8 percent relative to the FY 2010 appropriation. The request includes $370 million under the USGCRP framework, which is an increase of 16.0 percent. The Geosciences Directorate would receive $955 million (a 7.4 percent increase) in FY 2011 with $480 million going to Atmospheric and Earth Sciences. NSF’s Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program would receive $765.5 million. This is intended to promote discoveries and capability needed to inform societal actions in ways that contribute to environmental and economic sustainability. NSF’s request also includes $19 million for RE-ENERGYSE, a joint program with the Department of Energy intended to promote education in clean energy research. An additional $10 million would fund Climate Change Education, which seeks to increase understanding of climate among the next generation of Americans.

$10k for a published letter from big energy? Wow... We know your idea of scientific method, but can you do math?

The "news media" is almost all left wing, both in reporting and editorial content. Next time you're watching a panel discussion on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN etc. count the number of liberals vs. conservatives. They are usually 25% conservative, 75% liberal.

News organizations ought to publish the political leanings of their "reporters" so we are clued in about possible bias. It is hard to think of more than a handful of conservatives who ever reported for the big networks, much less that work there currently.

Americans are about 40% conservative, 40% independent, and 20% liberal. If news organizations were similarly composed, Democrats would be consigned to minor party status. As I review the local newspaper each morning I find that virtually every story which relates even remotely to politics is spun to the left.

The scientific method isn't perfect, but if you have a better method let's see it. I'll take science over prophets, fortune tellers, and homeopaths any day of the week.

The scientific method demands transparency. The AGW promoters have hidden data and methodology and has engaged in pal review that has allowed some very bad papers to get published. The IPCC has been infiltrated by activists who refer to grey literature that has been shown to be wrong while ignoring published papers that show that the AGW hypothesis has ignored many factors that are responsible for the trends that have been noted. There is nothing 'scientific' about the IPCC. It is a political body that is pushing a political agenda.

Yes, Mike, the government funds research for climate science and for a lot of other things. What I'm asking you to do though is analyze the institutional structure of the fossil fuel industry and that of government/the scientific community.

A CEO of a fossil fuel company may be a nice person, but he has an institutional constraint. He must maximize short term profits and he must ignore externalities because they are not part of his profit calculation. In fact he has a legal requirement to do this. Failing to make efforts to improve the share holder price is actually a crime since it is the expectation of the stock holders. So what that means is that even if he's convinced global warming is real and a serious danger, the capitalistic institution requires that he ignore that concern and maximize profits. So we should expect $10K/story and other perks from AEI in order to undermine the scientific consensus.

What about scientists? When a scientific consensus coalesces it's not unusual for the government to fund research related to it. The government funds a lot of research in health that is based on the theory of evolution. But it's not that people study the biological sciences in order to bilk tax payers out of money. They pursue it because they are interested in it and the government funding is following the scientific consensus. That's what's happening with global warming. This is an extremely lopsided consensus. We also have a consensus on the spherical nature of the earth. Satellite development and GPS development is paid for by the government and is based on that scientific consensus. So there was no conspiracy by scientists to trick us into thinking the earth was round. The roundness of the earth is established science. The research money is following the scientific realities.

Tom you should also do an institutional analysis on the media. What is the media? Who are they? Mega corporations. And who is the customer? It's not the viewer. If you aren't paying for it you aren't the customer. In fact you are the product being sold. The product is audiences. The customer is advertisers. Who are advertisers? In the case of the major media it is mega corporations. So what picture of the world would we expect to emerge from an institution like that? One that serves the interests of the owners and customers.

So take Fox News. When their investigative journalists discovered that Bovine Growth Hormone, manufactured by Monsanto, was dangerous, they wanted to serve the journalistic function and report it. Fox News intervened and demanded they modify the story by inserting lies provided by Monsanto lawyers. When the journalists refused they were fired. When they sued Fox News argued in court that lying was a constitutional right. The judge agreed and ruled against the reporters.

But it's not just Fox News. The hype for Saddam's nuclear program was in the NY Times. Occupy Wall St is a threat to the present power structure, so the movement was almost universally demonized in the early stages. There's some indication that the Democratic Party is trying to co-opt the movement like the Republicans co-opted the Tea Party, so you're seeing some positive coverage now. Wikileaks is also a threat to power, so once again that's been pretty universally demonized. When an enemy of the state, like Iraq, invades a foreign country without UN authorization, the media lets you know that it's outrageous. When the US does it it's barely mentioned. People don't even know how many countries we are at war in at this point. Civilian deaths are outrageous when done by Qaddafie. When Bahrain, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia mows down peaceful protestors, there's barely a peep. These are US allies going along with US corporate interest so there's no problem. Qaddafi was not doing the same so his crimes are well known.

That's to be expected based on who owns the media and who they work for. If you work for a corporation you act the same way. Non corporate news would look very different (and it does, watch Democracy Now for one day to see real news.)

VangeIV you say the IPCC has been infiltrated by activists and they are pushing an agenda. Again, the scientific method provides a means of countering such things if they are mistaken. New scientific theories are greeted with hostility. That's just human nature. Perhaps Einstein wasn't part of the in crowd. Hoyle's view may have been the dominant one and he probably had tons of allies. The scientific method has some built in constraints that prevent an immediate change. But change is possible. Einstein changed the consensus by proposing tests, making predictions, and proving his critics wrong.

The reason the consensus is so strong on global warming is because these very predictions and tests have been done repeatedly and we have discovered that the consensus is accurate. But if that's not true it's not enough to just say "Well, somebody hid data once, some of these people have an agenda, some bad papers were published." That's true for anything. What you have to do is propose a model, make some predictions, propose some tests, and have those tests repeated. This is the scientific method. It works pretty well. Yeah, peer review can become pal review. But review by peers is an essentical component of the scientific method. You can overcome pal review if you can produce the tests and make the predictions. If you are going to object to the scientific method then maybe you should propose an alternative. Nothing else has worked better. I say we should stick with it.

Jon,I will do no such analysis when you won't even open your mind to the possibility (certainty) that the incentives are the same, regardless as to the signature of the check. In your mind:Government funded scientists = true good scientistsPrivately funded scientists = charlatansEverything you've said about motivation of energy CEO's can be said about universities and government agencies. Period.

Your constant comparison to the shape of the Earth is not only irritatingly redundant, it's silly. Not adhering to Hume's strict definitions, you're comparing deductive facts to purely inductive theory.

Your glorious prophet, Al Gore, has a personal carbon footprint larger than my hometown. Is that really the way that one behaves when they are terrified of a specific action? It may be the way that one acts when they own a carbon credit company. Again, I think you may be looking at the wrong CEO's. You're being duped. You've left out the inconvenient truth that the scientists have largely followed the governments this time around.

Is the earth in a warming period? Looks that way. Does anyone really know why? No. You'll have to excuse me, I need to let my SUV idle in the driveway and crank down my AC.

what caught my attention is that the people who did the study were previously skeptics and now they're generating results that concur with the majority of the rest of the scientific community.

" "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," team leader Richard Muller, previously an outspoken critic of climate science, told the BBC. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions." "

Larry,That quote was selected by the writer. Oddly, very little attention given to the suggestion by those who actually did the work (the ocean current cycles).Again, my argument isn't fluctuation, it's causation. And, the 'previous climate skeptic' quoted didn't say he was wrong all along. He said he was surprised that these temperature readings weren't more affected by the radiant heat from cities and old gear. So am I.

The readings don't change my mind about anything. I accept the temperature changes we have seen. I also accept the possibility that one, or a combination, of the man-made factors could be a contributor...but I'm a long way from buying in to the crap that people like Jon are selling.

Watch the video he linked above and tell me where the climate models that 'work pretty well' are...all I saw was a bunch of decent theory combined with a string of huge mistakes that climate scientists have made since the '50's. It's a fine video (even though it's hardly a complete picture) if you want more theory to back up your conclusion.How many times can these people be told, "Oh, yeah, that was a mistake, but we have it right now" before they start to become skeptical themselves? (BTW, that was more of a philosophical question because the answer is infinite.)

@mike - do a google search on the keywords and you'll see a large number of similar characterizations.

I'm not expecting definitive proof no more than I'd expect that standard form hurricane prediction models but when a majority of the models are indicating something - you usually take some kind of prophylactic measures - even though they subtract from productivity.

so what I take away from the global warming issue is that while we don't have definitive proof (and never will) - at what point - do we decide that doing nothing is riskier than doing something?

It's short of like buckling your seat belt even though you're pretty confident that you're not going to need it - you buckle anyhow.

I understand your position, and that's fine. I disagree with your analogies though. First, the models show us where a hurricane might land (albeit, they vary wildly) after the hurricane is a fact. Ask the weather guys where the next hurricane will land before it forms and you'll get the same blank stare I'm giving my screen right now. I live in Houston, if you warn me about a hurricane, there had better be one somewhere. I do want proof so I don't evacuate, throw my patio furniture in the pool and board my windows for absolutely no reason...apparently, you wouldn't mind.

Secondly, I'd liken it more to buckling your seatbelt before you even know if you're going to drive that week (or ever again).

All I'd like is the All Holy Consensus to come up with reliable information of the causation. Even the climatologists that are screaming from the rooftops will now finally admit that CO2 doesn't precede a warming period, it follows....but, we're still about to get a cap and trade tax on flights to Europe out of New York. Why do you suppose that is? If that doesn't at least raise an eyebrow, Larry, I don't know what will.

My point is simple. I'm fine with doing something, but we have to know what that something is first. For the last 20 years it's been CO2 this and CO2 that, now it's...well....ya know...I'm sure it has something to do with something at some point...maybe. Unfortunately, we're about to be taxed and limited based on...well, we're not sure yet. That's not good enough for me.

Larry,Funny thing is (and I use 'funny' in a gallows way) we had a hurricane down here after Katrina (I think it was Rita) and, since it was so close to the New Orleans disaster (that people largely still misunderstand as something that was purely the fault storm damage) people in Houston FREAKED...mass evacuation caused many, many deaths, empty store shelves and general chaos...The storm? Well that broke a few windows.We stayed, btw, and did tequila shots every time the guy on the news said the words 'storm surge'. Had a great time.

So, the answer is no. We don't evacuate. We need proof or the fix will be worse than the problem.

Again, Larry, this is very simple. Tell me what the problem is and I'll help you do something about it.

If I lived in Houston, I'd probably do what you did.. If I lived in Galveston - I'd leave.

that's called situational awareness and what it says is that yes.. there is a time and a place when you do leave - and 100% certainty is not the standard.

ditto with tornado warnings.

when the doppler radar shows a potential threat - you're likely going to have the poppers in the basement... and you're likely to already have a basement or something equivalent - even if you may never have to use it.

Larry,I'll assume, for the sake of courtesy, that your first sentence was not directed at me.

Secondly, check a map, Larry. Hurricanes are huge and Galveston is at my back door. The ship channel runs all the way to downtown. Please, don't give me the geographical layout of the city I live in.

You still won't tell me what the problem we need to solve is. Write back when you have an answer. Is it a hurricane, or is it a tornado, or is it cancer, or is it a car wreck? Is it coming or is it possible?

You can go to the doctor and get diagnosed, then take your chances on treatment...or, you can skip the diagnoses and just start cutting yourself open. I'm guessing you'd opt for the latter?

First, nobody is claiming that the world has not warmed up since the end of the ice age so the study is not very meaningful, particularly when it uses 'adjusted' data sets that have had an artificial warming signal added to them since the 1930s.

Second, the study does not conclude that CO2 is the cause of the 2C of warming. In fact, the study points to the the correlation between global temperatures and the phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index, something that is troubling for the AGW promoters who have attacked Muller and company for doing shoddy work. I guess that they did not like the idea of the natural factors that were used to explain the warming.

Yes, Mike, the government funds research for climate science and for a lot of other things. What I'm asking you to do though is analyze the institutional structure of the fossil fuel industry and that of government/the scientific community.

Both react to incentives and pursue money and power. BP played along with the AGW scam as it attempted to get money from governments and garner PR goodwill with its Beyond Petroleum scam because it knew that it would not be the company but consumers who would pay for the UN's fraud and folly. Certainly the 'scientists' are not very credible when 28 out of 44 chapters included at least one person who was affiliated with the WWF and all of the Working Group 2 chapters included at least one WWF affiliated scientist. These are lead authors and contributors who are activists and have taken money from Greenpeace, WWF, and other environmental activist groups. And when they ignore peer reviewed literature while one third of their citations come from grey literature that has not been reviewed there is no credibility.

It is time for us to treat climate change like a scientific rather than a political exercise. Full transparency is needed. All of the papers dealing with the issues need to be reviewed, not just those that the activists choose to look at. All papers should be rejected unless the data and methods are available for independent review. The Summary report needs to actually agree with the rest of the reports and all uncertainties should be disclosed. When that happens there is no case to be made for anthropogenic warming because natural factors are more than sufficient to explain everything that we have observed.

Again, the scientific method provides a means of countering such things if they are mistaken.

Yes it does. But the IPCC has not allowed transparency. Most of the papers that are in dispute have authors that have not disclosed the data or methodology. In the case of the temperature record, CRU claims to have lost the original data and provides an 'adjusted' value-added set. Well, when you add a warming signal that can turn a flat or cooling trend to warming it is not a surprise that you will see warming in the reconstruction. But even if the trend were real you still need to point to the cause and the 'science' has found no empirical evidence that points to human CO2 emissions.

New scientific theories are greeted with hostility.

Not the AGW theory. It was celebrated by the media and the political establishment. The last time this happened was when the eugenics movement was supported by most scientific organizations and governments. How did that work out?

That's just human nature. Perhaps Einstein wasn't part of the in crowd. Hoyle's view may have been the dominant one and he probably had tons of allies. The scientific method has some built in constraints that prevent an immediate change. But change is possible. Einstein changed the consensus by proposing tests, making predictions, and proving his critics wrong.

This is just empty words without meaning. As I pointed out, the scientific method demands transparency and honesty. That is not what we have received from the IPCC.

Correct. But it is useful to some of the alarmists so they ran with it.

2. They said that the 70-year ocean current cycles should be given a much more serious look.

This was the funny part. The alarmist media did not realize the implications in the paper. Which is why the warmers at RC have attacked the authors by playing the, "taken money from the infamous Koch brothers," card.

You are also missing a few very damaging points to the IPCC. First, the claimed increase is 2C. The problem is that the increase has been good for humanity because the misery of the Little Ice Age was ended by the warm trend. Second, by acknowledging that the Little Ice Age was real the authors have attacked one of the major claims by RC and the Hockey Stick frauds.

It seems to me that the alarmists can't have it both ways. If they celebrate the findings of the authors (and ignore the data integrity and statistical methodology issues) they have a serious problem with the findings that ocean cycles are a contributor to the trends and the historical data that shows warming has coincided with a better life for human beings and reduced storm activities.

"They pay scientists $10,000 for every letter they can get published that serves to undermine the IPCC consensus on global warming, a consensus that is shared by 98% blah blah blah and some more blah"...

Thanks for the chuckle Jon...

Now I got to ask, why would anyone believe the IPCC regardless of what they say about anything?

Now that is funny coming from somebody who wants...no, needs to do something, about or for which they do not exactly know.

"Steve would be alive today except he did not "want to be cut open".

You know as much fact as you do theory, Larry. Mr. Jobs did have surgery. His latest battle was inoperable. Cancer is a bitch that I know a little too well and, sometimes, it can't be fixed.

As an aside, re: your last comment, you need a peer review to make sure the study is without error, Larry...gosh...why would anybody want that? I know you don't need it, but that isn't good enough for some of us.Especially when we are talking about a field that has a ridiculous history of error over the last 60 years......brrrrr, sure is cold now that the ice age predicted in the 70's hit...oh, wait...

You don't like my analogies because they are spot-on and in opposition to your thinking. That's ok, people are like that. I'll solicit one more time and we'll wrap this sucker up, Larry....tell me what the problem is and I will personally help you work to solve it. Don't give me any BS, tell me what the problem is. You don't know, they don't know and the "fix" can be worse than nothing if you're fixing the wrong thing.

I mostly agree with you (not sure about the exact end of the little ice age, I think it was earlier, but I'm no expert) but you have to understand...I can't make points like yours when I'm arguing with people who don't know what the problem is, yet demand a solution. People who like the studies but see no need for peer review.

Sometimes I end up questioning myself when I keep going back and forth with a guy who posts an article but doesn't see the nuance - or a guy who posts a video about models that contains no models. I love a good, thoughtful debate...but this is just utter nonsense.

It's hard to talk about a study that hasn't been published. but using pretty much the same temperature data from GHCN assures a graph that looks a lot like to those presented by HadCRU, NOAA, and NASA-GISS.

You understand, don't you, that there isn't any new temperature data available for years past. What's already been recorded is all there is, and there won't be any more.

A hundred different groups studying the same temperature data will get similar results, so it's not clear what the point is of this BEST study. Perhaps it will be clearer when they actually publish.

Mike: ".I can't make points like yours when I'm arguing with people who don't know what the problem is, yet demand a solution. People who like the studies but see no need for peer review.

Sometimes I end up questioning myself when I keep going back and forth with a guy who posts an article but doesn't see the nuance - or a guy who posts a video about models that contains no models. I love a good, thoughtful debate...but this is just utter nonsense."

You will never feel that you make any progress going back and forth with Larry. In time, he almost always argues the opposite position against himself. That can provide some entertainment, but don't expect anything meaningful to happen.

Unless you have some time on your hands, and can keep your expectations low, it's easier to just ignore his nonsense.

" You will never feel that you make any progress going back and forth with Larry."

except you're not arguing with him -you're arguing with the vast majority of scientific study not only for GW but for much of science in the world when it indicates change is needed when the potential for catastrophe is recognized.

Most of the banned substances were done using the same science which was never conclusive and always had some that questioned the results.

Hurricane modelling is exceptionally valuable and does generate evacuations even though we know that it is not 100% conclusive.

Ya'll act like Luddites. If you don't like the results then you attack the science.

Using Mike's logic - we'd never be sure what the exact causes are of anything and thus not able to justify any changes until we have 100% "proof".

Using Mike's argument we are wrong to say that cigarettes cause lung cancer because the "science" is "questionable".

that's the same argument that the cigarette companies used ....

at some point - you become luddite

and Mike: " Jobs, who died on Oct. 5 after a battle with pancreatic cancer, reportedly delayed surgery for nine months after learning that he had a tumor indicating a treatable form of the cancer. The AP reports: "Isaacson, quoting Jobs, writes in the book: "'I really didn't want them to open up my body, so I tried to see if a few other things would work,' he told me years later with a hint of regret."

http://goo.gl/ZK1oS

sounds JUST LIKE a GW skeptic except the consequences of gambling wrong affect way more than one guy.

again - it's not me or my view - I just accept the scientific consensus including the now convinced skeptic.

Steve was told by doctors and he gambled and he paid with his life.

so this is not about "Larry"... it's about those kinds of people who don't believe unless there is incontrovertible proof.

you don't need a peer review for that unless you're hoping that a peer review would "prove" his study wrong..eh?

First, if you want your paper to be credible you do need peer review. Even pal reviewed papers enjoy a level of credibility that 'grey' literature does not.

Second, you fail to note that his paper has been attacked by the AGW promoters. Why? Well there are a few problems for the warmers.

First, he says that the, "human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated."

Second, the findings are not in conflict with the skeptics, who attacked the MBH papers for hiding the Little Ice Age and have argued that the warming noted since the end of the LIA is not unusual.

Third, Muller brought up the phase of the AMO as an important natural driver of temperature trends. This is not what the alarmists want to hear.

Forth, by noting that the increase of 2C since the end of the LIA has not created problems with storminess, agricultural productivity, etc., the authors of the study take away some of the claims coming from the IPCC, which claims disaster from an increase of that magnitude.

I suggest that you actually pay close attention to what you are supposedly reading because it is obvious that you have comprehension problems. and of course - there seems to be no media selection, bias and sensationalism... either...

I mostly agree with you (not sure about the exact end of the little ice age, I think it was earlier, but I'm no expert) but you have to understand...I can't make points like yours when I'm arguing with people who don't know what the problem is, yet demand a solution. People who like the studies but see no need for peer review.

We have to be careful here. The material part is not about the exact end of the LIA because the warming began much earlier than that. The depths of the LIA happened around the time that the Maunder Minimum had ended. The warming started then, long before the Industrial Revolution was in full swing or human emissions of CO2 were material. If we start the calender at that point we find nearly 4C of warming, something that brought prosperity, not misery, to human beings and the biosphere of the planet.

I agree that the people that you argue with are not very knowledgeable and act out of faith even as they argue for science.

"The Earth's surface really is getting warmer, a new analysis by a US scientific group set up in the wake of the "Climategate" affair has concluded.

The Berkeley Earth Project has used new methods and some new data, but finds the same warming trend seen by groups such as the UK Met Office and Nasa.

The project received funds from sources that back organisations lobbying against action on climate change.

"Climategate", in 2009, involved claims global warming had been exaggerated.

Emails of University of East Anglia (UEA) climate scientists were hacked, posted online and used by critics to allege manipulation of climate change data.

Fresh startThe Berkeley group says it has also found evidence that changing sea temperatures in the north Atlantic may be a major reason why the Earth's average temperature varies globally from year to year.

The group includes physicist Saul Perlmutter, a Nobel Prize winner this yearThe project was established by University of California physics professor Richard Muller, who was concerned by claims that established teams of climate researchers had not been entirely open with their data.

He gathered a team of 10 scientists, mostly physicists, including such luminaries as Saul Perlmutter, winner of this year's Nobel Physics Prize for research showing the Universe's expansion is accelerating.

Funding came from a number of sources, including charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming.

Continue reading the main story“Start Quote

Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously”

"Science is best done when the problems with the analysis are candidly shared."

The group's work also examined claims from "sceptical" bloggers that temperature data from weather stations did not show a true global warming trend.

The claim was that many stations have registered warming because they are located in or near cities, and those cities have been growing - the urban heat island effect.

The Berkeley group found about 40,000 weather stations around the world whose output has been recorded and stored in digital form.

It developed a new way of analysing the data to plot the global temperature trend over land since 1800.

What came out was a graph remarkably similar to those produced by the world's three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles."

http://goo.gl/hqhRB

I think the above is an accurate report that basically demonstrates that no amount of facts will convince folks like Van who are bound and determined to cling to their Luddite worldview.

it is indeed fortunate that while we have to put up with such people - they are a minority and getting smaller as many of the previous skeptics are no longer.

A hundred different groups studying the same temperature data will get similar results, so it's not clear what the point is of this BEST study. Perhaps it will be clearer when they actually publish.

The point to think about my friend is this; why are the hard core alarmists at RC attacking Mueller and company to the point where they even brought up the Koch card? What is there in the study that really pisses off the alarmists and have them sharpen the knives?

Ya'll act like Luddites. If you don't like the results then you attack the science.

Note that yours is the faith based position. As the study that you are championing has pointed out, the impact of humans has been overestimated and the effect of natural factors like the phase of the AMO has been largely ignored by the alarmists. The Little Ice Age existed and the warming of 2C did not bring disaster. These are all conclusions that the alarmists do not like, which is why RC attacked Mueller as harshly as it did.

There's a lot of focus on this teenager that was mistaken for a climate expert, as if the existence of a single person that duped some makes all the models, all the measurements, and all the other test data disappear. If a fraud tricked the Pope into thinking the earth goes around the sun with bad evidence, would this suddenly mean Galileo was wrong? You are not going to prevent that and this is not the fault of the many good scientists that do good work and have helped craft the scientific consensus.

And when the scientific consensus emerges that there is significant risk of mass extinction due to corporate profit seeking activities then some activists are going to get involved in the process. That's called democracy. Some scientific chapters have WWF involvement. So what? What do you expect? The WWF is an organization that attempts to prevent the wrecking of the environment that is ongoing right now through global warming. Presumably many of them are well educated and they are scientists. Why wouldn't WWF members get involved?

Climate science is transparent. I don't know what you are referring to with the IPCC and it's supposed lack of transparency, but remember that most scientific consensus emerges without an intergovernmental panel. That's just a bonus in the case of climate science because in this case the fate of the entire species is in the balance, so an additional effort was made to firm up the conclusions. But if you don't like the IPCC, fine. Ignore them. The overwhelming scientific consensus remains for climate science like it does for all other scientific consensus.

With regards to "overreacting" think about what overreacting to the threat means. Developing renewable energy. Modifying economic arrangements so that continued increases in consumption are not required. These are things we should be doing even if there were no global warming threat. But there is the threat and it is huge.

There's a lot of focus on this teenager that was mistaken for a climate expert, as if the existence of a single person that duped some makes all the models, all the measurements, and all the other test data disappear. If a fraud tricked the Pope into thinking the earth goes around the sun with bad evidence, would this suddenly mean Galileo was wrong? You are not going to prevent that and this is not the fault of the many good scientists that do good work and have helped craft the scientific consensus.

I think that you have not read the book. It is full of references that show that the IPCC is not the unbiased scientific body that the media has portrayed it to be. Its lead authors, who determine what papers get considered and which ones are to be ignored, are dominated by activists who have worked for environmental groups and political appointees. Many of the people who make the decisions are not experienced scientists but activists that have no advanced degrees. There is a clear conflict of interest that is well documented and that would set off the people who are trying to portray the fossil fuel industry as huge spenders on anti-AGW research.

It is also important to note that many of the most alarmist claims come from 'grey' literature that has not been verified as correct by anyone. Many of those claims have been refuted by peer reviewed papers that were ignored at the time the IPCC was making them. And most importantly, the IPCC has never offered a single paper that has used empirical evidence to show that human emissions of CO2 are a material driver of temperature trends even as it ignored empirical evidence that pointed to changes of land use, emissions of particulates, changes in solar activity, natural phases of ocean patterns, etc.

The book exposes the IPCC as a political organization that has massive conflicts that were never disclosed to a public that wanted to believe.

No it isn't. The alarmists failed to archive proxy data, did not keep previous versions of temperature data after changes had been made, and have violated the FOI legislation to hide their data and methods from scrutiny. In NZ the government went as far as to claim that no 'official' record existed after it could not explain how temperature measurements that showed no increase for a century were converted to a 1C per century trend. (This bit may be a problem for Mueller because it would be easy for skeptics to look at the NZ and Australia data that was used in the study and to compare that data to the actual measurements.)

The climate debate is very easy to end. All that we need is full transparency by providing access to the original data and the code that was used to modify that data and create the value-added sets that Mueller and company were using for their reconstruction.

No. Relying on the IPCC data and pal review papers that do not disclose data is faith based. And as I have pointed out, all you have to do to win the argument is to point to a single paper that shows that human emissions of CO2 are a material driver of the climate trends that have been observed. Stop pretending that such a paper exists. If you have it provide us with a link to it. If not admit that yours is a faith based position.

Well yeah, I didn't read the book. Do you read every book that is suggested by a critic immediately? What are you expecting?

So there are billions or trillions of data points and SOME proxy data wasn't stored properly. When you have thousands of scientists working on a problem, sometimes some will do things that are wrong.

Do you throw out all pharmaceuticals because some people individually have abused the system to bring products to market that weren't safe or properly tested? You can't have that many people involved without some wrongdoing. You don't then shut down the whole pharmaceutical industry.

As far as activists being involved, you're ignoring what I said in response. In democratic societies we should expect that people that are concerned about the fate of the species would in fact get involved in the process, including the scientific process. Should they all be excluded and the fossil fuel industry should just run wild, fudging as necessary to maximize profits? The scientific method proceeds in fits and starts, but input is permitted from a variety of people despite their differing opinions. That's how it works. There's no alternative. The process is really good though at preventing irrational biases from affecting results. Not perfect, but the best we have.

And forget the IPCC if you like. Intergovernmental panels are not typically part of the scientific method. We still have consensus even if we ignore IPCC. Go ahead and ignore them. To reject the consensus is to approach flat earth territory.

Jon: "The WWF is an organization that attempts to prevent the wrecking of the environment that is ongoing right now through global warming. Presumably many of them are well educated and they are scientists. Why wouldn't WWF members get involved?"

Say, aren't those the people who produce commercials showing polar bears falling from the sky, hundreds of airliners nose-diving into Manhattan, and school children exploding in class?

Larry,Again, your analogies are incorrect. The science on smoking is clear, transparent and still based on probability. Yours is more like the effects of second hand smoke (and mirrors) which is non of the above.Anyway, don't even bother to respond to this comment because I won't read it. I've asked you 4 times what the problem is, what the solutions may be and you've not even attempted a response. It takes an exceptional Luddite to proclaim a problem, insist on a solution and remain incapable of naming either. If you were capable of introspection, I'd highly suggest a meditation session.

Actually, Ron, Luddite is the perfect word for Larry to use...he just hasn't realized it describes himself. Incorrectly thinking that machines would be a problem, they destroyed the machines that ultimately helped them.They couldn't see the actual problem and their remedy was harmful to them and others.

again.. you're not arguing with me - you're arguing with hundreds/thousands of scientists - the same folks who said that cigarette smoking caused cancer and had the same folks like the Koche brothers on the other side seeking to undermine their results.

the science is settled on the issue and you still refuse to accept it.

that's your problem...

you're out of touch with the realities.... and basically are choosing to believe what you wish - which is LUDDITE.

again.. you're not arguing with me - you're arguing with hundreds/thousands of scientists - the same folks who said that cigarette smoking caused cancer and had the same folks like the Koche brothers on the other side seeking to undermine their results.

the science is settled on the issue and you still refuse to accept it.

that's your problem...

you're out of touch with the realities.... and basically are choosing to believe what you wish - which is LUDDITE.

Well yeah, I didn't read the book. Do you read every book that is suggested by a critic immediately? What are you expecting?

I don't dismiss books that I haven't read, particularly when there are plenty of references that support the points that are being made. I am expecting you do do something similar. The fact is that the author uses public records to show that many of the lead authors and contributors have direct links to the WWF, Greenpeace, and other organizations and that many of them are not qualified to have the positions that they were given. She uses IPCC records and comments to show that many of the appointments were made by politicians to meet diversity quotas. She shows that more than 30% of the references in the latest AR came from 'grey' literature that primarily came from environmental organizations even as peer reviewed paper were being ignored because they did not support the AGW claims.

So there are billions or trillions of data points and SOME proxy data wasn't stored properly. When you have thousands of scientists working on a problem, sometimes some will do things that are wrong.

When the gatekeepers refuse to allow access to the data you no longer have the transparency that science and the scientific method require. In the case of the temperature data you only have a handful of gatekeepers who keep adjusting it without keeping the previous versions of the the data sets or providing access to the metadata and methodology that explain the changes. They have added a warming signal to the raw data since the 1930s without adequately explaining why the warming signal is justified. In the case of the NZ government we saw a retraction of the official data set. The problem is that the 'scientists' are still using the value-added set as a part of the analysis even though the changes to it could not be explained.

As far as activists being involved, you're ignoring what I said in response. In democratic societies we should expect that people that are concerned about the fate of the species would in fact get involved in the process, including the scientific process.

Science requires transparency and a declaration of conflicts of interest. When you have neither the work produced is not credible.

But you are still ignoring my most important point. Nobody at the IPCC has been able to point to a single study that uses empirical data to suggest that human emissions of CO2 are a material driver of climate change. This is after three decades of work and more than $200 billion of funding. As Phil Jones pointed out, the argument is that man must be responsible since 1950 is based on the fact that he and other people at the IPCC cannot come up with another explanation. But as others have pointed out, once you look at the AMO/PDO index and changes in solar activity you have more than 80% of the change accounted for. That does not leave much room for human emissions of CO2 (which are tiny compared to natural sources) even if all other natural factors were ignored. And things get worse for the IPCC once we look at the feedback claims being made. You would know this if you actually spent some time doing your own research.

And forget the IPCC if you like. Intergovernmental panels are not typically part of the scientific method. We still have consensus even if we ignore IPCC. Go ahead and ignore them. To reject the consensus is to approach flat earth territory.

Two things. First and most importantly, science has never been about consensus. Second, the consensus claim is false because there hasn't ever been a valid survey of scientists that has shown this to be true.

"the science is settled on the issue and you still refuse to accept it."

Which science, Larry? The science that CO2 causes global warming and should be limited? Whoops. You accept anything anybody in a white coat tells you....Even when they've been wrong on the same topic 20 times in as many years. I'm thinking a nice white coat, with cozy, wrap-around sleeves, may be a good fit for you.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, yet you will defend it to the end (and beyond). Just admit that you are clueless as to what the problem may be and we'll call it a day.

The IPCC has never been transparent or compliant with the scientific method. That is not surprising given that it is a political organization. What is surprising is the fact that the media still claims that its reports, which are full of BS, unsubstantiated claims, and discredited statements are still being sold as science by the media and by people like you.

2. are there groups that you support that are credible, appropriately credentialed and authoritative in their opposition?

Science demands transparency, not trust. It is the job of scientists to question everything and work hard to disprove all claims and conclusions.

The problem is that it costs you a third of the energy to compress the gas in the first place.

The key question about shale gas is not therefore whether it exists in huge quantities, but whether it can now be exploited on a large scale at a reasonable price… Not everybody agrees with these [high] estimates…What makes it possible for prices to fall while production expands in an industry is unit cost reduction through innovation… even though there is a speculative bubble leading to low prices and some bankruptcies, a large and sustained increase in gas production from shale is none the less likely.

What makes it possible for production to exist at such low prices is the willingness of investors to fund companies that are eating cash and destroying capital. What gets to me is that all of the data is disclosed by the producers. While everything is in place to do a proper analysis people would rather believe in stories that are not supported by actual data.

"The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy's Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government's own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.

Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64ºC temperature rise in the past 50 years, "most" of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.

We know that cities show anomalous warming, caused by energy use and building materials; asphalt, for instance, absorbs more sunlight than do trees. Tokyo's temperature rose about 2ºC in the last 50 years. Could that rise, and increases in other urban areas, have been unreasonably included in the global estimates? That warming may be real, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect and can't be addressed by carbon dioxide reduction."

He goes on in a similar vein, concluding with this:

"Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."

But there is no debate over whether there is warming, only by how much might be caused by humans, and what the likely effects will be. Something Muller and his team leave for others to deal with.

Even you should understand that if there are other, more important forces at work than CO2, as Muller suggests, that no amount of CO2 reduction will make any meaningful difference.

You haven't yet explained the embarrassing possition you are in, claiming the BEST study "proves global warming", while the alarmists at RealClimate denounce it.

and I'm asking you if there are scientific folks out there that you think are doing it right or do you think worldwide - that scientists are closet liberals...not to be trusted at all?

There are plenty of people who are doing it 'right.' As long as there is full transparency and an honest attempt at peer review I have no problem with most papers. But you don't have transparency in the climate change arena and the peer review process has become a joke.

Even you should understand that if there are other, more important forces at work than CO2, as Muller suggests, that no amount of CO2 reduction will make any meaningful difference.

You haven't yet explained the embarrassing possition you are in, claiming the BEST study "proves global warming", while the alarmists at RealClimate denounce it.

This is the funny part. As my twelve-year-old son pointed out, if the study supported the AGW argument the biggest criticism would not come from Real Climate. He thinks that we will get an argument that would say that Mueller is a shill for the oil companies because what he says is devastating to many of the claims made by the alarmists.

Check anyone who does empirical research and is published in the hard sciences. See how the methods and data are provides so that the results can be replicated? That is what the scientific method is all about.

Larry, In all honesty, I'm not trying to be insulting, but you have a major reading comprehension problem.

anti-dubious science with even more dubious solutions does not equal anti-GW.

anti-government interference/regulation based on the above does not mean anti-government.

For the 6th time, Larry. You're 100% on board with this crap, so...tell us exactly what the problem is and what we should be doing. If you can't do that, and you still can't understand why that makes you look so silly, then maybe you should just stop.

Jon: "Do you throw out all pharmaceuticals because some people individually have abused the system to bring products to market that weren't safe or properly tested? You can't have that many people involved without some wrongdoing. You don't then shut down the whole pharmaceutical industry."

That's not a good analogy. You don't seem to understand the controversy.

Again, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. I restate that, well, because you have a reading comprehension problem.

As I have said (repeatedly) I love all good science and the probability/outcome. However, even your "consensus" isn't really one at all. Even the GW alarmists disagree about the cause and/or solutions...when they did, they were wrong. That may be why you can't answer the most fundamental question in this debate, yet you insist that we are wrong - when you have no answers at all. For example, the paper you linked has nothing to do with man-made GW. All it states is that the temperature readings seem to have been correct and that the planet has warmed a bit. I'll accept that finding, even though it has not been reviewed. Your comprehension issues made you read that article as proof that man-made GW is real. You're wrong.

Are you really asking me to name off all the government I like? That may be the single most idiotic thing I've read anywhere. Not to mention unrelated.quod erat demonstrandum

Not sure if you've seen it, but there's a part where King Arthur cuts off the knight's arm, yet he refuses to acknowledge that it happened. The scene ends with Arthur walking away, while the now completely limbless knight still refuses to give up....even though he's been reduced to a feckless stump.

What you've said is false. Everybody here believes in science and all the wonders produced and discovered. You believe in nonsense.You believe in science??? WHICH SCIENCE? You don't even know what science you believe! CO2? Methane? Ocean currents? You have to know it to believe it and you don't know it...anything else is faith and that makes this a religious argument.

You believe in government but think corporations are evil empires. I have some bad news for you, Larry. They're two sides of the same coin. I trust government and corporations only as far as they show to do what they supposed to do. You are blindly following and that makes you a sheep. I'll assume that you don't trust all of the world's governments, do you? If not, why? Where is the separation line that makes Larry distrusting?

Larry, you have yet to answer the most simple, 101 question about the belief you are fighting for. I'm sorry, but you are a sheep...and probably the one that is stupid enough to walk in to the slaughterhouse by your own free will.

"" Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously..."

LOL, yes. He was surprised that, considering all the problems with previous studies, they had managed to get results that were similar to the results Muller's team got from using additional data, and what he considers to be better statistical methods.

Mike: "Ron,Forget responding to Vange's comments, they can't answer the extremely simple questions that I've put out. Do you really expect either of them to go deep when they're stuck in the kiddy pool?"

I have no hope of ever having a meaningful interchange with Larry, and very little that anything written here will be seriously considered by Jon, but someone else reading this thread might benefit from the discussion, so it may be worth responding to them when I have the time and inclination.

You really should try to find a Sylvan Learning Center for that reading issue. Also, BTW, I find it fascinating that you have the balls to ask me any questions regarding my beliefs when you won't answer the single most important and most fundamental question regarding this topic.

I'll quote myself from my last post. "Everybody here believes in science and all the wonders produced and discovered."

I think the most interesting thing I've found in reading your nonsense is this: I have realized that I love science more than you claim to. Science has taught me the most important thing one learn...question the answers if they don't seem right to you, and sometimes even when they do. You are a VERY un-scientific person, Larry.

To list the scientific marvels I appreciate is like asking me the number of dollar bills that have passed through my hands over my lifetime.How about a few I don't? (not that I blame these people, they were just wrong)

Introduction of non-native species to control other species, like the cane toad in Australia.

Like when Nasa used the metric system and LM used the English system when they built a satellite in 1999.

Space shuttle disasters

Watching the slander that takes place when one scientist tries to disprove another.

Here's a handy list of Einstein's 23 biggest mistakes just for fun: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/sep/01-einstein.s-23-biggest-mistakes

Your question about government is so stupid it actually makes me sad. I don't like or dislike "government". I have issues with things that governments do.If you have a 3rd cousin you don't like, does that mean you 'don't like family'?

Not sure why I'm asking you questions, Larry. You have absolutely no answers. I'm not even sure you have your own opinions

Larry,You are a complete idiot. I really hate to break my own civility rules, but I would say that to your face, so I guess it's ok.

Here's a definition for you, not that you will understand. Ask somebody at the home where they keep you.Science (noun) : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

You don't care about the state of KNOWING. You don't care about the level of misunderstanding. You have said several times that we don't even need proof.

"you're so fouled up that you disbelieve virtually all science and are opposed to virtually all govt."

Show me where I said that. Show me! You're not only at least partially retarded, you're delusional and/or a liar. Considering that, not only did I not say those things, I've said quite the opposite makes you dangerously psychoneurotic.

"I've asked you to name scientific organizations and groups you believe and you run away.I ask you to name the best govts for free market health care and you run away again."

You never asked either of those questions, not that they have anything to do with the topic, but...go ahead...roll back and show me which posts you asked those questions. You asked me which science I trusted and I answered your idiotic question the best way I could. I depend on science every single day of my life.

You are so dim that you don't even know what you are saying. You love government, but you end your stupid post with a negative comment about the governor of Texas? What did he do, take jobs from your state? I thought you loved and trusted government, Larry. Except when you don't? Well, then, you must be opposed to virtually all government. How'd you like the Iraq war, Larry? The Patriot Act? Guantanamo Bay? Death penalty? War on drugs?Wow....I'm guessing you HATE government.

I ask you one, extremely simple question. You won't answer but take me to task for not naming every scientific institution in the world? F off, Larry. You're a complete fool.

Huh, I was wondering how a media bias post got so many comments, but now I see it has become a global warming argument. I haven't dived into the data but I suspect the warming is small, much smaller than the alarmists report, because it is difficult to measure and because there's a lot of data massaging going on. Even if we were to assume that the warming is going on, a couple degrees more is not that big a deal and it is difficult to tie it back to man-made causes. Even if we were to assume the opposite for all that, there's not much we can do about it now, at least in terms of reducing human-produced carbon emissions. That's why the Copenhagen Consensus came to the conclusion that climate change is not worth doing much about. The fact that the lefties have gotten Jon and Larry riled up about this non-issue has more to do with their dreams of controlling even more of the economy than any real danger. Like all govt bureaucrats, whether those using the 9/11 attacks to waste billions more on "defense" or these warming alarmists, the goal is to manufacture a "crisis" where they can grab more power.

ROn - only folks like you do that... and most of them dislike all forms of govt ...don't trust science...in general and believe that scientists and govts conspire on a world-wide basis and love to call names and play bully boy.

Who is we? Your keepers at the home? You should have said "they" because you know absolutely nothing. You may be the shallowest thinker I've ever interacted with on any level...and, to those who may read this - please, trust me...I've interacted with some that could conclusively prove a missing link.

What "we" actually do know is that you take up dozens of posts, containing zero content. You offer no backing to your assertions, no answers to questions asked. I know for a fact that you're a keyboard coward. There's no chance you'd say I 'run' from anything or attempt to label me to my face. You're a weakling, Larry. Both intellectually and physically. You're a disgrace, yet... I'd imagine, somehow, you sleep at night with a share of cognitive dissonance.

"I don't love govt or science."

Huh? What, exactly, are you arguing for or against? Just to get a rise out of me and others? Be a man, Larry. If you want to push people, do it in person.

"love to call names and play bully boy"

I'm just going to assume that this was intended for me, even though you are just a tad too scared to directly point it in my direction. I don't "play" anything, Larry, nor am I a bully. But I will defend myself against misrepresentation and, admittedly, I do respond poorly. I'll pay for your trip to Houston if you'd like to have a very exciting discussion. If you prefer to cower, I suggest you direct it somewhere else.

Mike you have the same problem that some others do when you say that because you don't like what someone else says that you there therefore "forced" to call them an idiot and heap other verbal abuse.

No Larry. He is calling you an idiot because he is looking at the objective evidence. You make claims that you cannot support. You give opinions even though you are ignorant of the issue. You fail to learn. You use a faith based approach that avoids logic and empirical evidence. That does make you an idiot.

VangeIV, let me ask a question about this issue you regard as important. You say:

But you are still ignoring my most important point. Nobody at the IPCC has been able to point to a single study that uses empirical data to suggest that human emissions of CO2 are a material driver of climate change.

I'm curious what you are basing this on. IPCC is not a scientific body. They are merely collecting the scientific information for presentation. They don't do research. That presentation claims that human activity is clearly causal. This article explains several of the reasons why we know human activity is causal. So what is the basis for this assertion you have made.

Perhaps you could point to that specific claim, as AR4 is quite large, and you could save us a great deal of time looking for something we don't think exists.

" This article explains several of the reasons why we know human activity is causal."

"The Greenhouse Effect Is Real: Here's Why" - no one doubts the physics of CO2 absorption of IR radiation. What about the much greater effect of H2O absorption of IR? Why isn't that discussed more?

What about the effect of clouds formed due to increased atmospheric H2O? This isn't well understood, but some climate scientists believe that increased cloud formation results in a negative feedback effect on atmospheric warming. Your series of opinion pieces doesn't address that subject at all.

That there is more atmospheric CO2 these days is not in question. That the Earth is warmer than in the recent past is not in question. The questions are all about how heat energy is handled in the real atmosphere and the oceans, as opposed to GCMs.

Saying that it must be CO2 because we don't know what else it is, isn't good enough.

It appears that most of the articles in your series merely ridicule those who disagree with the conventional dogma of catastrophic climate change, and attribute evil motives to them. This series of "conversations" is opinion, Jon.

Careful with your links...." US and China colluded to undermine any effective climate change efforts there."

If you're suggesting large-scale collusion regarding climate change, Larry will send the black helicopters after you. Clearly they couldn't conspire to keep polluting since it's impossible that they conspire at all.

"Ya'll act like Luddites. If you don't like the results then you attack the science.again - it's not me or my view - I just accept the scientific consensus"

"we do have a problem with people acting like idiots these days."

"... it's black helicopter time..."

"you're out of touch with the realities.... and basically are choosing to believe what you wish - which is LUDDITE."

"the GW skeptics tend to believe in worldwide conspiracies and are stridently anti-govt."

"because the man relies on facts and credible sources instead of the idiotic blather you boys spout? I'm surprised that ya'll trust anything that has to do with govt or science..."

"If we could get ya'll to a beach area at the next hurricane - we'd have an excellent chance of Darwin's Law yielding real fruit."

All of which preceded anything I may have said to you that could be considered remotely condescending, let alone insulting.

Then comes my favorite parts...

"so this is not about "Larry"... it's about those kinds of people who don't believe unless there is incontrovertible proof."

"the science is settled on the issue and you still refuse to accept it."

"you don't need a peer review for that unless you're hoping that a peer review would "prove" his study wrong..eh?"

"I rely on science and believe in govt.that's a point in my favor."

"I don't love govt or science.both are what they are "

Ummmmmm...these statements don't fit together.

There's only one reason anyone would choose the words they do and blatantly contradict themselves in an effort to garner responses...well, there could be two reasons. Either you're a complete idiot (which does seem likely) or you're just trying to push our buttons at the safety of your keyboard (which I find slightly more likely). That makes you a tech-age, passive-aggressive coward. You would never dare say those things to my face.

If you'd like to prove me wrong, my offer still stands:-Mike William Houston At Gmail Dot Com-Email me and I'll set up your trip to Houston.

"and if you engage in it then I'm going to be in your face - count on it."

This is one of the few places during my day that I can have a good conversation or debate and learn a few things along the way. You aren't here for that and (while I realize that paying any attention to you is at least partly my fault) you ruin the experience. I don't agree with Ben or Jon on many things, but both are responsive to questions when asked and respond with some substance.You just show up to piss people off with nonsense and doublespeak and that's not acceptable.

oh but they do. the fact that you do not understand is your problem not mine.

no govt and no science is 100% correct or right but it's way better than the alternatives that you seem to gravitate towards.

When I ask you to name the govt and science you do find acceptable.. it apparently pisses you off... because you apparently have none.

" "and if you engage in it then I'm going to be in your face - count on it."

Bring it. Southwest flies into Hobb"

sorry - you'll get it here guy... I'll return the favor each and every time you wish to engage.

" This is one of the few places during my day that I can have a good conversation or debate and learn a few things along the way. You aren't here for that and (while I realize that paying any attention to you is at least partly my fault) you ruin the experience. I don't agree with Ben or Jon on many things, but both are responsive to questions when asked and respond with some substance.You just show up to piss people off with nonsense and doublespeak and that's not acceptable. "

if you don't like it keep your trap shut and move on down the page.

no one "makes" you do what you do.

but I'm someone who will return the favor .. I don't take the abuse nor the snide and condescending remarks that you make not only to me but others.

be a good boy and stifle it when you do't like what someone says...

no one forces you to be a fool.. it's not required you know.

it's not like I hold a view that is mine alone.

I actually hold views that a good number of others hold - a majority in fact..and yet when I support that viewpoint it apparently so pisses you off that you feel the need to heap verbal abuse.

I'm curious what you are basing this on. IPCC is not a scientific body. They are merely collecting the scientific information for presentation. They don't do research.

Correct. But the IPCC lead authors are supposed to look at all of the literature and come up with evidence to support their conclusions. The fact that their conclusions are based on the inability of incomplete and incorrect models to point to natural factors does not make man's emissions of CO2 is the cause. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support that conclusion.

That presentation claims that human activity is clearly causal.

There is no objective evidence for this. Even the hyped up Mueller findings conclude that the effect of humans may have been overestimated.

This article explains several of the reasons why we know human activity is causal.

Here you go again. You are citing articles but can't point to any scientific paper that uses empirical data to show that CO2 emissions by human beings are responsible for climate trends. Until you can point to science instead of narrative yours will always be a faith based position.

So what is the basis for this assertion you have made.

My assertion is simple. Phil Jones and the IPCC claim that it must be man's emissions of CO2 because they cannot figure out which natural factors could explain the data. But we know that there are several other factors that they have ignored. The first is solar activity. Not only do we have papers that show that Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds, something that the IPCC has ignored, we have empirical data that shows the mechanism. But this is just the beginning. One of the biggest promoters of AGW has been the Met Office. Its researchers have finally noticed another solar factor, the change in UV radiation during the 11 year solar cycle. But that is not all. We have seen papers about the effects of the changes in land use on temperature readings, the effect of black carbon in heating in the Arctic, the effect of ENSO, PDO, and AMO conditions on trends, etc. These are all far more important to climate trends than CO2.

And as Judith Curry has posted, many of the true believers are busy explaining why there has been no temperature increase for a decade even as human emissions were at record levels. The skeptics have science on their side and clearly have an upper hand when it comes to the debate. With the passage of time, even the media and alarmists will catch on.

With regards to Copenhagen, recall that we learned thanks to Wikileaks that the US and China colluded to undermine any effective climate change efforts there.

So what? The Chinese do not really believe the AGW alarmism. They are simply using it to their advantage as the West tries to destroy itself.

While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

" Skeptical Science has become a well-known resource for people seeking to understand or debate climate change, and has been praised for its straightforwardness.[11] Marine biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg has described it as "the most prominent knowledge-based website dealing with climate change in the world",[12] and The Washington Post has praised it as the "most prominent and detailed" website to counter arguments by global warming skeptics.[13] In September 2011, the site won the 2011 Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum in the category of Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.[14]Cook has also been recognized for his conservative Christian evangelical beliefs while maintaining his stance on anthropogenic global warming,[15] two positions that some people would consider conflicting.[16]"

"oh but they do. the fact that you do not understand is your problem not mine."

Oh, yes, Larry...you are SO deep.

"no govt and no science is 100% correct or right but it's way better than the alternatives that you seem to gravitate towards."

That's what I've said all along, but now it's your position and I'm a conspiracy theorist. Now, tell me, exactly what alternatives do I gravitate towards?

"When I ask you to name the govt and science you do find acceptable.."

I tried to answer that question by telling you the science I've trusted and depended on is uncountable. That not good enough, Larry? You don't answer a single question, but I'm a bad guy because I can't answer a question with a near-infinite list of responses?

"behave yourself or you'll get it right back in your face"

Absolutely laughable. I just offered you a free vacation along with the chance to put it in my face and you won't take it.

You're right, I don't have to read the retarded crap you write and I'll try not to. But if you ever change your mind, I'd love to meet you...just let me know. Until then, have fun hiding at your desk.

Ron H: "Perhaps you could point to that specific claim, as AR4 is quite large, and you could save us a great deal of time looking for something we don't think exists."

Good luck. You can check the Summary for Policymakers where the IPCC claims that, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations," but notes that, "Consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodologies."

Got that? The IPCC confidence that, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas," is based on methodologies that ignore such factors as solar activity, changes in land use, changes in cloud cover, ocean circulation patterns, the role of soot, etc. If you ignore the natural factors it is easy to say that your methodology concludes that it is man.

While I am at it let me bring this point about so called consensus. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry was just awarded for Daniel Shechtman for a discovery that brought him ridicule from the experts in scientific establishment. Shechtman had empirical data to support his conclusions and anyone could have replicated his results. But when Shechtman defended his findings, he was fired from his research group at the NIST in Maryland and was told to buy an elementary textbook so he could learn about crystallography. The 'great' Linus Pauling attacked him and his findings and he was accused of 'bringing disgrace' to his research team. The consensus among the 'experts' was wrong but what was interesting is that people in the hard sciences out of his field had no problem seeing that he could be right. This is a perfect example of why science does not depend on consensus or appeals to authority. All it needs is transparency and skepticism.

" "When I ask you to name the govt and science you do find acceptable.."

I tried to answer that question by telling you the science I've trusted and depended on is uncountable. That not good enough, Larry? You don't answer a single question, but I'm a bad guy because I can't answer a question with a near-infinite list of responses?"

what I asked you was to name the science and govt you find most acceptable if not perfect, is flawed and not fully accountable and you name none and insist that both are in cahoots on a worldwide basis and none can be trusted.

correct me if I got that wrong.

that's not rational guy.

All I've done from the get go is defend the institutions of science and govt - despite their flaws - they still are value-added enterprises that benefit us.

When you look at hurricane tracks - you see multiple scenarios including outliers and almost always NONE of them are 100% correct but we know that and yet we don't call it "flawed" or corrupt or scientists up to no good....

the fact that there are different models and different predictions does not logically lead to a conclusion that the science is wrong because it is not consistent and cannot explain inconsistencies.

As someone who has worked his entire career with models.. I can tell you with certain assurance that models are vital despite their flaws - and good models - you rely on... to send things like missiles on their way to their targets..that's ALL done with modelling guy.

your ballistic and cruise missiles use modelling for their fire control settings...

on your "invite".

is this how you resolve conflict in your life with folks you don't like?

VangeIV, can you direct me to the statements from Jones and IPCC that claim that the only reason they think human agency is causal is because they cannot think of a natural explanation? My link gives positive reasons for why we think the cause is humans, not natural causes. The IPCC claims to be a presentation of the scientific consensus, not just assertions. Maybe they aren't doing that properly, but prima facie one would think that since this is the purpose of the IPCC this is what they would do. Maybe they aren't, but I think you have an obligation to provide some evidence that in fact IPCC is not presenting the scientific consensus and in fact is just speculating because nothing else seems plausible to them. What we have so far is your assertion.

With regards to your claim that regarding cosmic ray effects on aerosols and clouds, you say the IPCC ignored this evidence. But this evidence was published in 2009 and IPCC's latest report was in 2007. Is IPCC supposed to review yet unpublished reports? Besides the study you link to in no way overturns IPCC claims and is yet another example of the right wing flak machine grossly distorting what the science shows. Watch this video for a description of what this study does and does not show, and also the subsequent right wing obfuscations.

Your link that says "shows the mechanism" is broken, so I can't look at that.

With regards to your claim regarding the 11 year solar cycle, are you actually claiming that this is something scientists were unaware of? Watch another video from potholer54 extensively discussing the relationship of global temperature with the 11 year solar cycle in the scientific literature and why solar forcing cannot explain the recent rise in global temperature.

Your claim that scientists are scrambling to explain the lack of warming over the last decade seems very dubious. Take a look at the chart. 2010 was another record. Your article uses brackets to say things like "The reason for the hiatus [in warming]". So "in warming" is not in the original. Not sure what's going on there. It's getting warmer.

While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

But there is a link dumdum. The link is between the cosmic rays that cause ionisation in the lower troposphere and cloud cover. That has been well established in the literature and no amount of fibbing by will change the facts.

"....a comparison of neutron monitor measurements, Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 isotopes (both proxies for cosmic radiation) with global temperatures found that cosmic rays "have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" (Lockwood 2007). Regardless of whether cosmic rays help form clouds, the trend in cosmic radiation is opposite to that required to cause warming."

VangeIV, can you direct me to the statements from Jones and IPCC that claim that the only reason they think human agency is causal is because they cannot think of a natural explanation?

First, read the IPCC statement and note the qualifier. As I wrote above, "The IPCC confidence that, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas," is based on methodologies that ignore such factors as solar activity, changes in land use, changes in cloud cover, ocean circulation patterns, the role of soot, etc. If you ignore the natural factors it is easy to say that your methodology concludes that it is man. "

Second, when asked, "If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made," Phil Jones answered, "The FACT THAT WE CAN'T EXPLAIN the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." In science you don't prove a hypothesis because you are ignorant of other factors that could explain your observations.

My link gives positive reasons for why we think the cause is humans, not natural causes.

Your link is to a narrative that is not supported by the known evidence. I cite actual papers that make the case for the argument that I am advancing.

The IPCC claims to be a presentation of the scientific consensus, not just assertions.

But as was pointed out in the book that I referenced, it does not represent scientific consensus. The IPCC lead authors are not representative of actual scientists. They are political appointees, just like the people that run most national science organisations. Note that the members of scientific bodies do not approve the statements, just as the members of the IPCC do not approve the final reports.

Maybe they aren't doing that properly, but prima facie one would think that since this is the purpose of the IPCC this is what they would do.

The purpose of the IPCC was to show that humans are impacting climate change, not to investigate the causes of climate change. It is a political organisation that has political goals.

Maybe they aren't, but I think you have an obligation to provide some evidence that in fact IPCC is not presenting the scientific consensus and in fact is just speculating because nothing else seems plausible to them. What we have so far is your assertion.

I have provided it. Look at the book that I referenced provides the names, dates, incidents, etc., and is full with actual references that you can look up. We also have explanations by insiders who have quit the IPCC, that are easy to check. We have seen the errors made on the Amazon, the Himalayan glacier fiasco, the climate refugee claims that failed to materialise, and the false sea level claims. The many errors are obvious even to the pro-AGW press. The fact that you are so ignorant of these events shows that you are not much more informed on the subject than Larry.

Read the book. Check the references. Then get back to us with an argument that actually makes sense.

VangeIV, when I see name calling, like dumdum, it looks to me like cover for an inability to make a strong argument. It also doesn't make for pleasant conversation, almost like you're trying to chase away your opponent. That's easier than dealing with him.

Your chart from Svensmark shows radiosonde temperature, not global temperature. Look at my chart of global land/ocean temperature. They don't track. So Svensmark's data is not plotting the temp question we are addressing.

Watch the first video I provided regarding cosmic effects on aerosols before mocking Larry for failing to read the scientific literature. It's obvious that you didn't and this explains why you are repeating gross falsehoods from the right wing flak machine.

You tell me to read a book you recommend, but I can see that your present arguments don't justify the conclusion you make.

Here's your conclusion. The IPCC claims man is the cause because they can imagine a natural explanation for the warming we see.

OK, that's a conclusion. Where's the evidence for this conclusion. It's in a book. OK, well, isn't there anything that you can point me to that doesn't require me to read a book that may or may not justify your claim? I want to know that you have a handle on how argument works before investing time in a book that I have not heard of.

So here's an argument supporting your conclusion that the IPCC speculates that it's man made because they can't conceive of an alternative. An errors were made regarding the Amazon and also the Himalayas.

Seriously, what does one have to do with the other? Mistakes were made regarding the Himalayas. Therefore IPCC says global warming is man made because they can't conceive of an alternative. I fail to see any logical connection between the two statements. Explain the link here. If this is what passes for persuasive argument in your mind them I'm highly dubious this book of your justifies the claims you are making.

With regards to your claim that regarding cosmic ray effects on aerosols and clouds, you say the IPCC ignored this evidence. But this evidence was published in 2009 and IPCC's latest report was in 2007. Is IPCC supposed to review yet unpublished reports? Besides the study you link to in no way overturns IPCC claims and is yet another example of the right wing flak machine grossly distorting what the science shows. Watch this video for a description of what this study does and does not show, and also the subsequent right wing obfuscations.

There was plenty of 'evidence' that was ignored by the IPCC. The references that I provided were just verifications of the theory by other means. I first became aware of the theory in the mid 1990s and by the time Svensmark and Calder published their great book, I had acquired more than enough knowledge to consider the argument much more sound than that provided for CO2. When you have a theory that can explain observations at all time scales without the need for plug-in factors you better pay more attention to it than the IPCC did. I also found it interesting that the IPCC managed to miss a huge number of papers written by Russian solar physicists that supported Svensmak's theories. They were actually predicting the beginning of a new Little Ice Age that would last for many decades, something that the European press has managed to actually report.

With regards to your claim regarding the 11 year solar cycle, are you actually claiming that this is something scientists were unaware of? Watch another video from potholer54 extensively discussing the relationship of global temperature with the 11 year solar cycle in the scientific literature and why solar forcing cannot explain the recent rise in global temperature.

No, I am saying that scientists mostly ignored the changes in UV emissions during the solar cycle.

Your claim that scientists are scrambling to explain the lack of warming over the last decade seems very dubious. Take a look at the chart. 2010 was another record. Your article uses brackets to say things like "The reason for the hiatus [in warming]". So "in warming" is not in the original. Not sure what's going on there. It's getting warmer.

No, 2010 was not another record. The claims come from imputed temperatures in the Arctic, not actual thermometer readings. I gave you an actual reference where you had people like Kevin Trenberth, James Hansen, John Barnes, Jean-Paul Vernier, John Daniel, Susan Solomon, Ben Santer, Judith Lean, and Graeme Stephens. There is a huge scramble going on to find the 'missing heat' that should have accumulated in the oceans if the AGW theory were correct. I expect that the gate keepers will try to make some kind of 'correction' to the actual measurements by adding a warming signal as they did with the surface data. But that would be much harder given the fact that much of the data that they want to change has been archived and that previous versions have been kept by skeptics. We are already seeing the European press running from the AGW alarmism by preparing readers and viewers for the cold winter that the solar scientists predicted but they failed to report. And we have already see voters turn their backs on the alarmists and take the side of the skeptics.

VangeIV, I just read this open letter from Chris Landsea explaining his reasons for withdrawing from IPCC. He believed that Kevin Trenbirth, a lead IPCC author, made some remarks that went beyond what the science showed with regards to the effects of global warming on hurricanes. IPCC made clear that Trenbirth was speaking on his own as an individual scientist and not as a spokesmen for IPCC with those remarks. The 4th assessment ultimately accurately reflected the scientific assessment to that point and did not make the same claims Trenbirth did.

So nothing from Landsea justifies your claim that IPCC proposes man made global warming because they can't think of an alternative. Landsea doesn't even claim that he rejects that global warming is man made largely. Why would you think this is in any way justification for your claims?

This is why I expect you to justify claims before I would consider reading a book you recommend. If you can't provide evidence that justifies your assertions then there's no reason to think a book you recommend provides evidence for your conclusions either. It doesn't seem that you understand what evidence for a conclusion should look like.

I will play your game. You may define recent as narrowly or broadly as you choose, but as it relates to "global warming". If you insist on a definition of recent, I will put the timeline between 1850 and now.

The consensus now admits that CO2 in the atmosphere is a lagging indicator of warming. By about 800 years. Humans are only responsible for <3% (even today, let alone the beginning of industrial revolution).So, even if man-made CO2 was the culprit, we'd be talking about this in 700 years.

'Man-responsible' N2O is about 20%. And I believe most of that is livestock attributed to people.Methane is not produced in any meaningful quantity by burning fossil fuel.

Mike, the lag time is well understood by climate scientists. The concern is not that CO2 itself will cause immediate massive warming. The concern is that a slight variation can act as a trigger that causes runaway warming. There's a video on it here.

BTW, VangeIV, I read the source material from Judith Curry's discussion on how scientists can't account for a lack of warming. Here's an excerpt she omitted:

"Beneath the sheen of consensus stating that human emissions are forcing warmer temperatures -- a notion no scientist interviewed for this story doubts -- there are deep uncertainties of how quickly this rise will occur, and how much air pollution has so far prevented this warming."

It also concedes that the naughts were the warmest decade on record and by some measures 2010 was the hottest year ever. So the reality is you have global warming models and nobody is expecting them to perfectly predict global temperatures. When the results deviate from the model you should ask why, but it's not as if this overturns the core facts and the core scientific consensus (once again, not doubted by a SINGLE scientists involved in the discussion you linked to).

So what's going on? Coal from China may be temporarily deflecting the sun's energy. This will change because China is mandating cleaner burning because of health effects. So we could see a rapid temp increase as the air starts to get cleaner. Also there are random factors not well understood, like deep ocean currents, El Nino and La Nina. The models aren't perfect. And there's unanimity among those involved in this story that man is causing global warming.

BTW, VangeIV, I read the source material from Judith Curry's discussion on how scientists can't account for a lack of warming. Here's an excerpt she omitted:

"Beneath the sheen of consensus stating that human emissions are forcing warmer temperatures -- a notion no scientist interviewed for this story doubts -- there are deep uncertainties of how quickly this rise will occur, and how much air pollution has so far prevented this warming."

Actually, she did not omit anything. She makes it very clear that the people being quoted are true believers in AGW. What she is pointing out is that they can't account for the lack of warming over the past decade.

It also concedes that the naughts were the warmest decade on record and by some measures 2010 was the hottest year ever. So the reality is you have global warming models and nobody is expecting them to perfectly predict global temperatures. When the results deviate from the model you should ask why, but it's not as if this overturns the core facts and the core scientific consensus (once again, not doubted by a SINGLE scientists involved in the discussion you linked to).

Of course, when you add a warming signal to the actual measurements it is not surprising that the analysis finds warming even when the raw temperatures show little in the way of a trend over the past 8 decades.

You don't need a station to measure the temperature at a given location. Satellites use infrared temperature sensing.

And rather than linking to unsourced screen captures, why don't you provide data from sources that can be checked. For all I know the plots you offer are straight from the Exxon Mobile PR offices. Not saying they are, but you have to offer something checkable.

I have a couple minutes before I roll for the weekend, so I just want to throw this in before I go.

Jon, I've seen the video and understand that theory, but that's all it is, a theory, and where the consensus breaks down.

Vange has pointed out many pieces of equal merit to show natural cycles. I don't know for sure, so I'll admit that this is purely a guess, but if you could look at the times when there was no climate change surrounding times of massive wildfires and early volcanic activity, the total amount of CO2 isn't important, it's the percentage change. My guess is that you'd find changes over 3% with little or no change in the climate.

There are some data that show times when the CO2 level was 30% higher than today with similar temperatures.

This is not to say that it is not a combination of man and nature. My point is that nobody knows with any real confidence. I'm ok with good probability, but I don't think we're there yet. I'm all for energy efficiency and burning less, but the cap and trade taxes the crazy money we're spending "investing" in inefficient 'green' energy and death of businesses like Hummer are counterproductive when we may just as easily be staving off a damaging cooling period.

Simple. Nature does not work the way the IPCC said it did. Models are not reality and eventually the public catches on to the corruption. Voters complain about the higher taxes that they are force to pay and have little tolerance of claims of the need to fund the search for the 'missing heat' as they freeze their butts off.

Coal from China may be temporarily deflecting the sun's energy.

Really? But why wouldn't those emissions make the Arctic warmer because they reduce the amount of sunlight reflected from the snow?

This will change because China is mandating cleaner burning because of health effects. So we could see a rapid temp increase as the air starts to get cleaner.

But we are not seeing rapid increases. The ARGO system is showing that the predicted increases in ocean heat accumulation have failed to materialize. Europe is preparing for another brutal winter. Even the alarmists are finally acknowledging the effect of solar activity and the AMO/PDO index. You can ignore all this and try to blame China for the failure of the models but you have no evidence to support any of your claims.

Also there are random factors not well understood, like deep ocean currents, El Nino and La Nina.

Right you are my ignorant friend. The IPCC did not understand natural factors but said that it was CO2 anyway so that it could meet its political goals. Why else would it have picked incompetent hacks to lead many of the chapters and ignored the actual experts?

The models aren't perfect.

Correct. They are worthless and have no predictive skills. Which is why the IPCC no longer claims that it makes predictions but deals in scenarios.

And there's unanimity among those involved in this story that man is causing global warming.

No kidding. They all believe in global warming being caused by human emissions of CO2. But theirs is a faith based belief because they could not provide any empirical evidence that supports that view, hide behind the IPCC statement that it must be man because the current methods it employs cannot point to other factors even as they ignore much of the published literature that falsifies the AGW claims. And when confronted with the truth they try to make up excuses about why we have cooling and why the expected heat accumulation is not taking being observed.

Jon: "And rather than linking to unsourced screen captures, why don't you provide data from sources that can be checked. For all I know the plots you offer are straight from the Exxon Mobile PR offices. Not saying they are, but you have to offer something checkable."

I agree, referencing a source would be good. The first one appears to be from UAH, a source you seem to trust, as you referred to satellite measured arctic temps making station readings unnecessary.

If you knew the sources of the other two graphs, would you have a problem with the data?

Anyone who expects science to be 100% dead-on correct practiced only by the most scrupulous people who all agree is being totally unrealistic.

Anyone who remembers the cigarette wars should know this.

to this day there are those who say that we have never proven the mechanism between cigarettes and cancer and that some people smoke their whole lives and ever get cancer.

science is not pretty.

when you see multiple hurricane tracks in the media for the same hurricane and the actual path is none of them what do you think?

do you think they are liars... colluding with each other to promote their models?

do you think their models are full of contradictions, faulty premises and fatally flawed?

when you look at the weather forecast and it says rain - do you think the science behind it is corrupt and deceptive?

why is it that one particular area of science is suspect?

that's what I don't really understand.

people who do not have degrees in science literally don't understand everything they think they do.

It's like thinking you know more than the Doc with 12 years of education knows.

I do not take what any of them say with blind acceptance but on the other hand if some folks did the same thing they are doing with climate science - with other fields of study - they'd find many of the same problems that they apparently think are unique to climate science.

there are very, very few respected scientists in the world today who do not believe in man-caused AGW.

I think we are down to fewer than can be counted on one hand.

there's not necessarily wrong but I put them in the same category as the scientists who still claim that a definitive link between cigarettes and lung cancer has not been proven.

at some point... you end up deciding NOT to smoke.. even though there still is no definitive study to explain why some people can smoke and not get cancer.

This is the problem we're having Larry. It doesn't have much to do with the science itself. If you actually read what I wrote, you should be able to understand that I realize that it's never perfect or pretty, almost always coming down to probability vs. risk/reward.

You're intentionally mangling things like hurricane's and smoking with a real, visible problem with this particular brand of science:The cause of global warming is very unclear. Yet, the general public, even some very educated and informed, believe that the cause has been decided.

There is no consensus, except those that say there is a rise in temperature and it MAY be man-made. However, the world governments are taxing/spending and, along with social groups, are pressuring people to make huge, expensive changes based on CO2.

You can call it conspiracy theory. Jon linked to something suggesting collusion between nations (so, I guess even those with like minds are at odds).

Clearly, the science is NOT in. Completely incomplete, but the forced changes have been underway for a while. Something about that is, at the very least, premature if not outright suspect. It's not the science that I have a problem with, it's the overly simplistic, totally misleading information that has found its way into mainstream thinking.

You don't need a station to measure the temperature at a given location. Satellites use infrared temperature sensing.

Really? How accurate are those readings? Note that NOAA was showing lake surface temperatures of 600F but the alarmists missed it. How much of these junk readings make it into the data sets that are used to calculate temperatures? (Note that I have not even brought up the argument that the idea of an average temperature makes no sense to begin with.)

And GISS is not using satellite data. As was pointed out in the links that I provided it is using stations 1000 km away even when actual measurements are available in the area. This has been admitted to by Hansen who has described the process in some detail. Try looking at it before you make statements that show your ignorance.

And rather than linking to unsourced screen captures, why don't you provide data from sources that can be checked.

The graphs that I provide are well known to anyone who has been looking at the issue. The data that I usually present comes from UAH, GISS, NOAA, etc. As I wrote above, you should be familiar with the graphs that I provided because they are common knowledge to people who have looked at the issue. The fact that you are too lazy to actually read up on a subject on which you post so much shows that you care more about opinion than fact.

For all I know the plots you offer are straight from the Exxon Mobile PR offices. Not saying they are, but you have to offer something checkable.

No, they are not. Unlike the IPCC, I do not like to use grey literature and made up data. Example:

See the link above? It comes from the CDIAC, an agency funded by the US Department of Energy. If you don't trust the data that it produces than don't use the other data as the basis for your conclusions. The CRF graphs and the GISS adjustments came from papers that I have previously referenced.

What amazes me is the extent of your ignorance. The fact that you don't even recognize the graphs and have no clue where the data comes from shows how little work you have done to acquire the knowledge that you need to form an opinion.

Vange has pointed out many pieces of equal merit to show natural cycles. I don't know for sure, so I'll admit that this is purely a guess, but if you could look at the times when there was no climate change surrounding times of massive wildfires and early volcanic activity, the total amount of CO2 isn't important, it's the percentage change. My guess is that you'd find changes over 3% with little or no change in the climate.

It goes deeper than what you are saying.

First, the IPCC comes up with a residency time for CO2 of 100 years. But if you look at the literature you find very different results. What the actual empirical studies show is that human emissions of CO2 are absorbed very quickly and do not have the impact claimed by the IPCC.

Second, even the alarmists admit that human emissions are dwarfed by natural sources such as the oceans and the biosphere. While CO2 is increasing the anthropogenic contribution is actually very small.

Third, the pre-industrial CO2 levels are in doubt. There are hundreds of papers that have CO2 levels not all that different than the levels that we see today. While they could be wrong it is interesting that the IPCC dismissed those results without justification.

Forth, the ice core data shows that CO2 is not the driver of temperature change. It is the effect of temperature change as it lags the temperature trend by hundreds of years. In real science the cause comes before, not after the effect.

There are some data that show times when the CO2 level was 30% higher than today with similar temperatures.

Actually, there is data that shows that the earth went through equatorial glaciation even though CO2 levels were more than ten times higher than today's level. These periods coincided with the time when the solar system was moving through the galactic arms, which means that ionization due to cosmic rays in the lower troposphere was much greater. The data points to solar activity, not CO2 as the driver of temperature.

This is not to say that it is not a combination of man and nature.

But when you look at the data you do see the effect of man. Cities are much warmer than rural areas because they store energy during the day and make nights much warmer. But that has nothing to do with CO2 emissions but with changes in land use.

Anyone who expects science to be 100% dead-on correct practiced only by the most scrupulous people who all agree is being totally unrealistic.

That is the point dumdum. The IPCC pretends that the uncertainty is much lower than it is and is pointing to a cause that is not supported by the empirical evidence. Because of its ignorance it has no basis for its economically damaging recommendations.

Vange,I'm not surprised by ignorance at all, in the grand scheme, I'm ignorant to much of this stuff. What I continue to find surprising is how hard people will fight over things they don't know all that much about because it's been beaten in to them by ideologues.

My real question to you is about the 600 degree lake temps you mentioned. If that is due to cloud cover deflecting the waves in the upper atmosphere, wouldn't that render almost all satellite data unreliable? Obviously, temps are cooler on the planet on cloudy days, but "accurate" readings can only being done on cloudless days.

I'm not surprised by ignorance at all, in the grand scheme, I'm ignorant to much of this stuff.

But you are not taking a hard line position pretending that you know the material.

What I continue to find surprising is how hard people will fight over things they don't know all that much about because it's been beaten in to them by ideologues.

That was the point I was making. These guys have a faith based position.

Look at it this way. We have spent 30 years looking at the effect of CO2 on climate change. If you add up what the US, UN, EU, and the rest of the world has spent you are looking at around $200 billion. Yet, there is no empirical evidence to support the claim that it is HUMAN emissions of CO2 that are a material DRIVER of temperature trends. As I pointed out, humans emit a tiny part of all the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere and the oceans. The ice core data shows that the changes in CO2 follow the temperature trends, not the other way around. The models don't work unless we use arbitrary plug-in factors to set them on the right path when the relationships break down. There is plenty of evidence that support the competing theories but those are not considered by the IPCC. Well, given the trends over the past decade the IPCC will have little choice moving forward.

97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming.[1] Another study found 97.4% of publishing climatologists and just under 90% of all earth scientists think significant man made global warming is occurring

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

I'd be the first to admit that the evidence is not 100% conclusive but then neither is the evidence in much of science.

but it's clear in the numbers that the vast majority of scientists believe that AGW is man-caused.

"but it's clear in the numbers that the vast majority of scientists believe that AGW is man-caused."

Even if that is so, they don't agree on THE cause. Which throws it all out the window. Also, the sources you site are dated before the consensus started to freely admit the lag time between CO2 and warming was really screwed up.

You have a team insiders who use an ambiguous method to come up with a conclusion that does not support your claims of consensus. It certainly does not support the claim that most scientists are believers in the AGW theory because it uses such a tiny sample of a very narrow group that has a huge conflict of interest.

They also fail to acknowledge hundreds of scientists who disagree with the IPCC's conclusions and are unconvinced by the AGW argument. We already know that there are actually tens of thousands of statisticians, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, geologists, atmospheric scientists, solar physicists, and members of other scientific communities who have spoken out against the poor quality of the work in the highly insulated AGW promoting climate community. And as Lawrence Solomon pointed out in his book, many of the 'believers' in AGW do not agree with the conclusions reached in their own fields but assume that the conclusions in other fields are correct.

The fact that the first paper you linked quoted the discredited Oreskes paper shows just how biased the researchers really are. Note that Oreskes has no qualifications of the type that the authors tend to promote and hold in high regard. Yet, they somehow blindly accept her claims while they marginalise scientists far better than they are.

And while I am on the subject let us note what Oreskes’ definition of 'consensus' meant. The first question was about whether humans were changing the composition of our atmosphere. But nobody is arguing this point. We know that humans are changing the planet. The more important question is about whether the changes to the concentration of CO2 have done any harm to the planet or have changed the climate significantly. There is certainly no consensus on that point because a warmer planet has increased biodiversity and has lengthened growing seasons. As for the change in temperatures, the consensus seems to be that our temperatures are still well below the Holocene Optimum and are below those reached in the MW or RW periods when we were not adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

But since when was science about consensus? I just gave two examples of recent Nobel awards to people who were ridiculed because they went totally against the overwhelming consensus in their fields. The three individuals involved were right even though everyone else thought their ideas ridiculous. You show again that you are more interested in faith and politics than in real science. Which explains why you don't seem to understand the issue.

Let me end by pointing to a former AGW believer, Judy Curry, who pointed out one of the essential problems with the paper you cited. She wrote, "But the most worrisome thing is the whole idea of the paper, trying to further enforce groupthink on this topic and its appeal of the IPCC group to it own authority. Isn’t this what got this group in such hot water in the first place?" Yes, that is what got the IPCC into such trouble in the first place. And yes, Donna Laframboise's book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert, clearly outlines the problems with the so-called experts who were nothing of the kind.

VangeIV, your sources are just unbelievable. I read your link on 600°F water in Lake Michigan. Oh my goodness, looking through a billion data points we sometimes find an out of whack number. What does this mean? We have no idea since we have no evidence of any consequences, but cue the scary music. Must be a nefarious conspiracy intended to lead to the horrors of renewable energy.

This guy could talk to any one of thousands of scientists to get an assessment. Who does he go to? "Internationally renowned climate scientist Dr. Timothy Ball." Ball is very concerned. Is this a deliberate attempt by politicians to pursue an agenda?

Let me offer the non conspiracy theory explanation. I happen to be a mechanical engineer that specializes in thermal management. I run simulations constantly. I perform tests and measurements constantly. When you take measurements it's not unusual to get little blips during data collection that read extremely high. Those are easily identified and expunged from the data. If one slips through this in no way affects the overall conclusions. If for some reason all these climate scientists are incapable of dealing with obvious and frequent data collection blips, then yeah, we're in big trouble, because all of science and all of measurement works this way. But we did manage to put a man on the moon and accomplish other things. I tend to think this is not a big deal. There's no reason to think this is skewing the data.

VangeIV, you remind me of this video. Throw all kinds of mud out there and hope that something sticks. Get away from these groups selling gold or hyping grandmothers with horns and look at the science.

VangeIV, your sources are just unbelievable. I read your link on 600°F water in Lake Michigan. Oh my goodness, looking through a billion data points we sometimes find an out of whack number. What does this mean? ...

But that is not the only example. We had the satellite sensors fail and show a very rapid reduction in ice cover that made no sense. It was ignored until individuals in the skeptic camp began to ask questions. We had huge hot spots in Russia that were 9C above average that were not questioned by the data keepers. It was only after the skeptics pointed out that they had used the wrong month's data that the changes were made. We had admissions by GISS and NOAA in which the data keepers admitted that their quality control methods were terrible. It did not help when SM found the so-called Y2K error that screwed up the US temperature data. It was finally changed in 2007 only to be changed back again by another undocumented revision.

This guy could talk to any one of thousands of scientists to get an assessment. Who does he go to? "Internationally renowned climate scientist Dr. Timothy Ball." Ball is very concerned. Is this a deliberate attempt by politicians to pursue an agenda?

The errors are well known and you certainly don't need to go to Tim Ball to get a commentary on the problems with the satellite data. Charles Anderson and Devendra Singh were also cited by me but there are hundreds of others who have problems with the way that NOAA, GISs and other organizations have handled the data. And let us note here that I refer to specific examples where serious errors were made and caught by the skeptics even as they were missed by the gatekeepers. Note that in all of the cases the errors were to the high side because readings that look to be significantly below the mean gets a huge amount of scrutiny and usually gets 'adjusted' away.

Strange that he would pick Timothy Ball. I suppose it's a mere coincidence that he's a paid consultant for various fossil fuel industry clients.

What nonsense. Any time you can't argue the facts you idiots try to do your character assassination angle. At the same time you ignore the fact that most of the people whoa are responsible for putting together the ARs for the IPCC are paid by environmental groups, 'green' industries, and governments looking to justify increased taxes on all things carbon.

Let me offer the non conspiracy theory explanation. I happen to be a mechanical engineer that specializes in thermal management. I run simulations constantly. I perform tests and measurements constantly. When you take measurements it's not unusual to get little blips during data collection that read extremely high. Those are easily identified and expunged from the data. If one slips through this in no way affects the overall conclusions. If for some reason all these climate scientists are incapable of dealing with obvious and frequent data collection blips, then yeah, we're in big trouble, because all of science and all of measurement works this way. But we did manage to put a man on the moon and accomplish other things. I tend to think this is not a big deal. There's no reason to think this is skewing the data.

Let me point again to the fact that the vast majority of the 'errors' have come on the high side. If they were random you would expect them to be about 50% on the low side and 50% on the high side. Clearly, there are errors made that make the readings come out too low. But the gatekeepers are on the lookout for those and clear them from the system very rapidly. They do not do that for the high side errors until the skeptics shame them into action. And one other thing. They use algorithms that have added a warming trend to the data since the 1930s. The reported warming since then is about the same as the amount of warming found in the 'adjustment.'

What we have is a political process that does not follow the scientific method. As such the conclusions reached by that process need to be checked. And that requires full transparency, full access to all the data, access to code, and disclosure of links between those putting together the reports and the fossil fuel industry, environmental groups, the 'green' industry, or government funded institutions.

Jon: "Mike, the lag time is well understood by climate scientists. The concern is not that CO2 itself will cause immediate massive warming. The concern is that a slight variation can act as a trigger that causes runaway warming. There's a video on it here."

To believe that slight variations in anything can result in a positive feedback cycle, and therefore runaway climate seems pretty unlikely, don't you think?

After all, in several billion years, all the various influences on climate have been present to varying degrees, including Milankovitch cycles, which haven't changed much in all that time, and atmospheric CO2 levels which have changed dramatically, and yet we have a global temperature these days that some consider ideal, and worth maintaining at all cost - although that may be impossible.

Why hasn't global temperature run away before now due to positive feadbacks? Perhaps there are instead, *negative* feedbacks that tend to maintain global temperature within a fairly narrow range. How else can we explain the sheer random good luck to have the near ideal conditions we enjoy today?

Note the graph of long term historical temperatures and CO2 levels, showing no correlation over a 600 million year time frame.

As for the Vostok ice core data, As you say, it is pretty well understood that atmospheric CO2 levels lag temperature by about 800 years, and are therefore a result of increasing temps, not the cause. A positive feedback loop involving additionally released CO2 is quite possible, but what causes it to end?

A graph in your video link clearly shows temperature dropping as CO2 continues to increase for another 800 years. This can only indicates that whatever causes temperature to stop increasing and begin decreasing, is a much stronger driver of temperature than CO2 is. There's no explanation for that in the video.

VangeIV, you remind me of this video. Throw all kinds of mud out there and hope that something sticks. Get away from these groups selling gold or hyping grandmothers with horns and look at the science.

And you remind me of Larry. You don't do your own homework and refuse to look at all of the evidence of corruption and incompetence. No wonder you are on the wrong side of the debate.

Ron: "Why hasn't global temperature run away before now due to positive feadbacks? Perhaps there are instead, *negative* feedbacks that tend to maintain global temperature within a fairly narrow range. How else can we explain the sheer random good luck to have the near ideal conditions we enjoy today?"

Let me point to one negative feedback. More CO2 in the atmosphere means fewer stoma on plant leaves. (You can look this up in the literature.) That means less water vapour given off by those plants and as we know water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Things are not quite as simple as the simpletons in the AGW movement want them to be. Of course, given the fact that they ignore the role of the sun it is not surprising that the depth of their analysis is not very impressive.

Why don't you look it up in the book that I referenced dumdum? Around 15% of it is references so you have plenty of support for the claim that most of the IPCC sections have at several green industry or environmental industry contributors or lead authors. If you doubt a report put out by people working for Exxon why should you believe one put out by people working for the WWF?

Jon: "VangeIV, your sources are just unbelievable. I read your link on 600°F water in Lake Michigan. Oh my goodness, looking through a billion data points we sometimes find an out of whack number. What does this mean? We have no idea since we have no evidence of any consequences, but cue the scary music."

That's more than "an out of whack number". Check the picture for dozens of other unlikely triple digit temperatures.

The question is, how widely has the phony data been used? see several links in the article referenced pointing to news stories that apparently rely on NOAA data, as most of us do. They are telling a false story.

You are correct, that anomalous data will occur, and should be corrected, but in this case, it wasn't until an anonymous reader pointed it out. For an organization such as NOAA, dealing with a subject as important as we have made it, such sloppy work isn't acceptable.

RonH, a quick question related to these out of whace 600°F readings and such, aren't we in agreement that the hockey stick is correct at this point? The recent data from the denial community (Muller) has confirmed the warming trend. I thought above you were granting the warming finally and just saying it's not being caused by man. But this argument related to 600° presumably is intended to show that we don't really know that we're warming. Are you granting Muller's data or not?

For us it's whack a mole. You doubt the science on warming. We whack that mole. You jump to the claim that it's about whether humans are the cause. We discuss that and you jump back to this claim that we really aren't warming. Didn't you already grant the point?

RonH, a quick question related to these out of whace 600°F readings and such, aren't we in agreement that the hockey stick is correct at this point?

Actually, it isn't correct at this point. MBH98 and MBH99 were discredited a long time ago and even the IPCC no longer refers to them. The proxy evidence diverged after 1960 from the adjusted instrumental data. And we are still cooler than we have been for most of the past 10,000 years.

The recent data from the denial community (Muller) has confirmed the warming trend. I thought above you were granting the warming finally and just saying it's not being caused by man. But this argument related to 600° presumably is intended to show that we don't really know that we're warming. Are you granting Muller's data or not?

Muller is showing that we have seen quite a bit of warming but that has been mostly to the UHI effect. A third of all of the stations, mostly rural, showed no warming. No skeptic will argue that urbanization has not warmed up cities significantly. No skeptic will argue that the effect is not logarithmic or that the evidence shows large effects even when small changes in land use are made. But that does not make the earth as a whole much warmer. As I showed from the UAH graph, Antarctica has not warmed at all over the past 50 years. The Australian and NZ raw data shows no warming. And the US raw data shows no warming since the 1930s. The warming comes from the addition of an artificial signal that is added by algorithms that cannot be explained adequately. In the case of NZ the government went as far as to claim that it had no official data because it could not explain the changes made to the original data.

The proxy records certainly shows that modern temperatures are not very high when compared to the Holocene Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, or Medieval Warm Period.

And keep in mind that Muller is not addressing the issue. Yes, due to having so many stations in urban areas with lots of concrete and asphalt added around them we do have warmer temperatures at those stations. But that is not the debate. The debate is about the cause of that warming. And Muller said that the effect of human beings was probably overestimated and that we should look to factors such as the AMO index as a possible cause. This is exactly why the warmers attacked the results by Muller.

if what you say was true - we'd know it from several sources - authoritative and credible sources not your conspiracy theory fools.

remember you say dum-dum -you get it back... keep it up.

No fool. The book does not make any claim that is not supported by evidence. The fact that your faith does not allow you to examine that evidence is your problem, not anyone else's.

And I hope that you noticed that the second listed author in the BEST papers took a shot at Mueller and said that he misrepresented the findings. The AGW idiots don't seem to have learned very much at all.

"RonH, a quick question related to these out of whace 600°F readings and such, aren't we in agreement that the hockey stick is correct at this point? "

No, Jon, the hockey stick is not correct. It has been thoroughly discredited, and isn't discussed in serious circles. It used questionable data, and statistical methods guaranteed to produce a hockey stick shape. I have discussed this at great length in the past. reread some of my comments on older threads.

You haven't responded to my ice core question, nor my comment on positive feedback, nor my pointing out that at long geological time scales, there appears to be no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, but have chosen instead to act confused about my positions on temperature and the role of people in changing climate.

My previous comments on this and other threads should have made my positions on the subject of climate change clear. I'm not sure why you are having trouble now.

if that were true - there were be more than one book and more than one person who AGREE on how it works differently as opposed to disagreeing with the current scientific - an agree to - alternative theory or scenario.

Instead each opponent has a different view ...

the opponents idea of "evidence" is not a theory they support but opposition to the current theory that is agree to by about 98% of the scientific community.

the other thing the opponents seem to agree on is that 98% are engaging in a massive worldwide conspiracy and coverup.

at the 98% level there is not absolute agreement on each and every aspect of the theory but there is substantial agreement of much or most of it.

" No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

so tell me which scientific groups and affiliations AGREE as a group that AGW is a scam?

if that were true - there were be more than one book and more than one person who AGREE on how it works differently as opposed to disagreeing with the current scientific - an agree to - alternative theory or scenario.

There are dumdum. We have actually provided links to them on past threads. The fact that you are still ignorant of them is your problem, not mine.

Instead each opponent has a different view ...

No dumdum. They all agree that the AGW myth has been discredited. What you seem to want is one simple explanation for everything but that is not how complex systems work. There is no one dial that can be turned this way or that to control temperature. There are many factors that have an impact. Those have all been discussed in the literature but have been ignored by the politically appointed hacks that control the IPCC proceedings.